HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1056.002 2004-2006
Page 1 of 1
Murashige, Laura
From: Bob Ward [rgward007@hawaii.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 2:00 PM
To: Council Testimony
Cc: Pilago, K. Angel, Isbell, Virginia
Subject: RES 449-06 KKVD-Pedestrian Easement
Attachments: CC-KKVD Pedestrian.doc
For the 10116106 Council meeting, I would like to provide the attached written testimony.
I am in support of the Resolution, however, some changes are requires to make the
easement more useable.
Robert Ward
Comm. No. j 5 Z
Ref. ToYreson
Ref. La'a t1CT 1 R2006 10/16/2006
TESTIMONY - COUNTY COUNCIL - Resolution 449-06 (Communication 1056) -
Public Access Pedestrian Easements from Kailua Kona Village Development, LLC
Prepared by:
Robert Ward
Kailua Kona
Thank you for the opportunity to share my concerns. I have been a
supporter of this pedestrian access even before the Declarant applied for the
Special Management Area (SMA) Permit. I still welcome the access but believe
that some changes are warranted to improve the accessibility and better utilize
the easement.
1. The SMA permit requires access along the mauka side of the seawall.
The legal description appears to place it along the makai side of the
wall. The makai location encompasses a deteriorating walking surface
and does not provide appropriate barriers or railings required by Code.
The legal description should be adjusted to place the lateral access
mauka of the seawall.
2. The vertical alignment presents some unique barriers to the mobility
impaired. The stipulations under 28CFR part 36 provide standards for
accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Requirements such as ramps may require a wider easement to
construct them and provide the necessary railings. The easement
should be adjusted to provide an additional 2 feet (or more) so that a
clear 10 feet will be provided for pedestrian use.
3. The intent of the SMA permit was to provide a 10-foot wide pedestrian
way. This is slightly different then a simply providing a 10-foot wide
easement. When the pathway turns, pedestrians do not follow the sharp
angles. They tend to follow a meandering path with soft curves rather
than abrupt changes in direction like a marching band. While there are
guidelines and standards for streets, bikeways and multi-use paths,
neither the Federal Highway Administration (FHwA) nor The American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
provide specifics on curves for pedestrian-only use. Using 10-foot radii
for the inside curves and 20-foot radii for the external curve boundaries
is reasonable. The easement should be adjusted to provide a minimum
internal radius of 10-feet and minimum external radius of 20-feet so that
a clear 10 feet will be provided for pedestrian use.
4. The SMA requires connectivity to the parcel to the north. The ultimate
route of the path as it continues north is not known. There are
significant barriers for permitting and design to simply assume that it
will be extended across the makai side of the fishpond. The route may
eventually traverse the mauka side closer to the current residence. The
easement should address either eventuality. The easement should be
adjusted to extend the northerly end mauka so that it will actually
connect to the parcel to the north.
5. The SMA permit stipulates that the lateral access must provide
connectivity to the parcel to the south, as well. The plan view on the plat
may indicate that the path is contiguous, however the field conditions
and the difference in elevation indicate that this has not been achieved
when ADA requirements are considered. The easement should be
adjusted to extend the southerly end mauka and widen it sufficiently to
accommodate ADA requirements and provide the required connectivity
to the south.
6. The ADA mandate to provide reasonable accommodation including
ramps and a suitable surface will require several improvements for the
pedestrian access to be fully utilized. While the document identifies the
maintenance obligations of the Declarant, it is silent on the issue of
construction. Construction responsibilities and completion schedule
must be identified. This is necessary to insure that the access can be
fully utilized and will satisfy ADA requirements.
Option: It should be noted that instead of providing a complex legal description
with various radii and widths (some of which have not yet been determined),
some communities simply require an easement that is wider then the proposed
path. For example a 20-feet wide easement would accommodate a 10-feet wide
path (with the exception of a switchback ramp, if required). This also provides
room for desired ancillary fixtures such as trash receptacles, drinking fountains,
rest areas, seating, lighting, shade, etc. without encroaching upon the 10-feet
wide clear path.
Thank you for you consideration.
Robert Ward